Abstract

What is the norm of assertion? Promising answers to this question exploit explanatory considerations: candidate norms should provide the best explanation of multiple strands of linguistic data. Recently, hedged conjunctions have been offered as a new strand of linguistic data best explained by the knowledge norm of assertion. In this paper, my aim is two-fold. First, I challenge both this explanation and other norm-based explanations of hedged conjunctions. Second, I develop a rival explanation that makes no reference to norms of assertion. The upshot: leveraging data on hedged conjunctions to motivate a norm of assertion proves more difficult than previously appreciated.